itrippledmyself66 karma2019-07-08 19:17:01 UTC
You mention that you would hope police would use a TASER over other means, should force become necessary.
Do you have any comment on—or have you conducted any research on—the hypothesis that carrying non-lethal weapons increases incidents of police use of force? I have heard claims that when carrying a TASER, police are less likely to attempt to de-escalate a situation, and will simply use the TASER to end the encounter without first attempting a peaceful or non-physical resolution.
(Clearly this has further legal consequences because a suspect to has been tased (is this a true verb?) is almost certainly going to be arrested, when a suspect who has had a non-physical interaction with police may be cited or dealt with through other means which do not involve loss of liberty... but that may be beyond the scope of this AMA as it’s a legal/procedural issue. Although I think it’s still an unintended side effect worth considering...)
View HistoryShare Link
itrippledmyself35 karma2020-01-18 21:41:25 UTC
I was once told to ask to see the invoice for the car before making an offer, because the dealer has to show you if you ask. Then then offer $100 above that.
Is that true and would that work?
itrippledmyself11 karma2020-07-06 09:17:26 UTC
How subjective is "sickest"?
A very sick person could have disease that will require another transplant later, even if they get one today. Does this factor in to the calculus?
I know for some treatments, other extant conditions and age are not allowed to be considered and the decision makers are not even presented with this information... (e.g. when ventilators were being rationed and triage plans were being designed/vetted)
itrippledmyself7 karma2019-04-14 17:42:23 UTC
You didn’t really, you didn’t, no.
We scrub information every 24 hours just means “If someone wants our recordings, they are available for 24 hours.” If someone smokes a joint behind the gym, do you think campus security is going to wait 24 hours before asking for video? No. They’re going to wait 15 minutes, and that footage will absolutely be there, by your own admission.
Also, shootings unfold in a matter of minutes, so even video of current events seems like information that’s arriving too late to be used in an active shooter situation.
However, We can already do exactly this with audio only-i.e. we can pinpoint the location of a shooter with directional microphones that detect the sound of gunshots. This seems a much less invasive, but equally useful, method.
You are recording minors all day. They can not decline, or prevent themselves from being recorded. If I was a parent in a school with these cameras installed I would be mad as hell—and I wouldn’t want my kid going to a school with AI big brother. No way.
itrippledmyself4 karma2020-09-30 00:02:29 UTC
No one else has been able to successfully bring an mRNA therapeutic to market. For any reason or against any target.
Moderna has attempted to do so for years and has failed repeatedly. Their current candidate has a disproportionate amount of adverse events. The taxpayers have funded this research to the tune of 1 billion.
What makes your candidate different from the other mRNA therapies that either don’t work, or have to many side effects to be practicable?
And, if yours does work, why should we not use more traditional formulations like the AZ or JNJ candidates that will be safer and sold at cost?
Copyright © 2014 BestofAMA.com, All rights reserved.
reddit has not approved or endorsed BestofAMA, reddit design elements are trademarks of reddit inc.